As someone already said, let us hope that he does NOT outlive his Mother, our gracious and noble Queen. The reign of Charles III or George VII will surely be disaster and the final downfall of the British monarchy as we know it. If Buckingham Place, a priceless historical monument, is to become a hotel, why not turn the Tower into office space and Clarence House into a distillery.

Being the monarch of a country is not a "wacky" game driven by self importance but rather a position of trust and utmost responsibility.

There actually is nothing "radical" or "wacky" in this idea. The Spaniards, Swedes &, I think, Norwegians have already done this. They no longer live in the "seat of monarchy" which has become primarily "office space" and a ceremonial centre.
Whilst I agree with you that I hope Her Majesty has many years left on this earth, our Prince of Wales has much to offer. I find your denegration of him, based on a trashy news story, to be very offensive.

__________________

__________________Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.

Point taken. However, a Monarchy is built on the foundation of a country's heritage, culture and history. This should really be preserved at all costs. The people should be able to trust their monarch to be a good and respectful custodian of this history.

I mean the PoW may have his plans (the article sounded like pure speculation to me) but he can only do so much.
What is there to hinder the British government in saying to king Charles (or king William): "Now listen. Buckingham Palace is the main royal residence and you are going to live there most of the time. If you don't like it, tough"!

I believe tourists mainly go to see Buckingham Palace because the Monarch lives there. Not to see some office building of the BRF or, good grief, a hotel.
Not to mention the cost of having what will de facto be two main royal residences in London, when administration, representations and residences are already neatly combined in one palace.

If Charles decided he wanted to live in Windsor Castle and leave BP as an office I don't think there's any chance of the govt telling him he can't do that. The great national moments, such as trooping the Colour and Jubilees etc, could still come together on the Mall with the RF on the balcony without the monarch actually living there.

I believe BP to feel very much like an office anyhow; everything we hear from the royals is how much they love the other royal residences, as opposed to BP.

Because that's their "own" homes so to speak?
I just thought it more likely that one of the other residencies in London would be converted into a "state hotel". - The constant "taxpayer" argument, you know.

Windsor, and I'd even go as far as to say that Windsor is her all round preferred home. It would be easy enough for Charles to shift the 'main' royal residence from BP to Windsor, but he would possibly have to open Windsor to the public more often than it is open now which may not sit well with other members of the family, as Windsor has always been the 'family' home.

But, if you look at Windsor and you look at Buckingham Palace? Which would you personally say was the 'main' royal residence? From that front facade it has to be BP.

I don't think it's because they own some of those other homes, Windsor Castle is not owned by the Queen privately, it belongs to the nation. The perceived wisdom seems to be that the Queen, and the RF as a whole, prefer Windsor to any of the other homes. I think it's because of the atmosphere and the extensive parkland where they can get some measure of privacy. Also, Windsor is close enough to London to make it reasonably practical. BP is home to the 'administration' of the monarchy and is an incredibly busy place so I can understand it feeling like a 'workplace' as opposed to a home. It also has well documented issues with regards to its need for renovation and modernisation.

I don't think the Queen has ever expressed a preference as to where she lives in London. I think if it was more practical the Queen would live in Windsor full time, Sandringham at Christmas and Balmoral in summer.

I seem to recall that when she came to the throne she and Philip expressed a wish to live at Clarence House, which had been redone to their taste, and only use BP for official functions but Churchill advised against it and left them no choice but to move.
Today the Queen spends more and more time at Windsor so I don't think in Charles reign it would be that big a deal for it to be his main residence and BP the office and venue for official receptions and entertainment. This would be similar to the monarchs of Spain, Sweden and Luxembourg whose family residence is different from the official residence in their capitals.
I think Victoria was the only monarch who really liked BP as a home (before she was widowed), although consorts such as Mary and Elizabeth regretted having to leave after their husbands died and the new monarch moved in. Queen Alexandra had to be persuaded by Edward VII to move into BP, and pretty much only did so because he promised her she could redecorate the place.

It's funny - I was just watching "Young Victoria" again over the weekend, with Victoria entering BP for the first time.

I disagree that tourists only come to BP because it is a 'residence.' Tourists go to the US Capitol in droves, to the former Capitol in Colonial Williamsburg. It's a stately building in its own right and I don't think it will suddenly drop of the list of "must-sees" in London if it's no longer an active residence.

__________________"Me, your Highness? On the whole, I wish I'd stayed in Tunbridge Wells"

Don't the Swedes live at Drottningholm, which is their residence and a tourist attraction like BP?

They live at Drottninghiolm where ione part of the Castle with the State Rooms is open to the Public and the other part where they live is closed as it are of the Garden behind this wing. but they still use the Royal Palace in the City very much the King/Queen and the Crown princely Coupkle all have their offices there and audiences an all takes place there and not at Drottngholm. But sill most parts of the Royal palace are open to the Public for most of the yeara sometimes certain areas like the "Bernadotte Appartements" are closed to the Public. I think it would be better if they would do the same with Buckingham Palace insted of turning it into an Hotel.

I think it would be better if they would do the same with Buckingham Palace insted of turning it into an Hotel.

I don't think the term hotel was meant literally in the sense that you and I could make a reservation to stay there. I think it is meant as an official guest house for visiting leaders which it is even now for some state visits. BP would still be used as the office and as the centre for state ceremonies, it just would not be the monarchs family residence.

It's funny - I was just watching "Young Victoria" again over the weekend, with Victoria entering BP for the first time.

I disagree that tourists only come to BP because it is a 'residence.' Tourists go to the US Capitol in droves, to the former Capitol in Colonial Williamsburg. It's a stately building in its own right and I don't think it will suddenly drop of the list of "must-sees" in London if it's no longer an active residence.

Yeah, but in my defence I'll say that the Capitol is a kind of parliament and all sorts of parliaments are vistited by tourists.
Tourists also go to see the White House, because that's the residence of the US president.

Of course Buckingham Palace won't be removed from the list of places to see. What I'm saying is that the average tourist may rather want to see the "home" of the BRF, not so much their office and an official guesthouse. In order to "smell" the royals and perhaps, maybe, hope to catch a glimpse of them driving past in a car or something.
Won't Buckingham Palace risk going down a notch on the must-see-list, if say Windsor officially becomes the residence of Charles or William, despite the museum?
Simply because tourists only have an X amount of time at disposal - and money too for that matter.

On another note. In what state is Buckingham Palace? Can we expect a major renovation/modernization when Charles becomes king? - In which case it makes a lot of sense if he is going to have his official residence somewhere else during his reign.
And a newly renovated palace will be ready for William.
Or is it more likely the politicians don't have the guts to approve that invenstment?

The BRF has 5 homes, Balmoral, Windsor, Sandringham, Clarence House and BP. You could even include Holyrood Palace, Clarence House, St James', Kensington. That's a lot of 'homes' to visit.

BP is as far as I've read in good condition, major renovation or modernisation would require a lot of saving in Charles' current budget from the government or an increase which he isn't going to get without a lot of fuss.

Well parts of the palace and its decoration have been sadly neglected. The government is officially responsible for maintenance but didnt keep the place up as it should have. Revenue from opening to tourists is supposed to be used to cover these costs now, and probably some projects have been completed. One doesnt here about stone/concrete falling off much anymore. It will probably take years and millions of pounds to renew carpets and wall coverings and make the interiors sparkle again.

...BP is as far as I've read in good condition, major renovation or modernisation would require a lot of saving in Charles' current budget from the government or an increase which he isn't going to get without a lot of fuss.

I see.
I thought the state was responsible for the upkeep and renovations of the palaces, since they belong to the state. - Excluding furnishing, paint, electricity and heating of course.

ADDED: NGalitzine posted while I wrote the above.
Okay, so the BRF pay for everything inside the palaces, excluding plumbing, I guess.
That's a lot of money, even for the BRF!

I see.
I thought the state was responsible for the upkeep and renovations of the palaces, since they belong to the state. - Excluding furnishing, paint, electricity and heating of course.

An article about heating which hit the headlines last year, I believe the state pays for the upkeep but it only gives a certain amount of money to the royals for their palaces, look at the Windsor disaster in 1992, the Queen had to raise the money herself practically to fix the damage.

An article about heating which hit the headlines last year, I believe the state pays for the upkeep but it only gives a certain amount of money to the royals for their palaces, look at the Windsor disaster in 1992, the Queen had to raise the money herself practically to fix the damage.

That's one hot potato!
But judging from the report mentioned in the article, there would be a lot of money saved in the long run, not least for the state, if a major energy-overhaul was made.
15 mega-Pounds for maintanaince? That doesn't sound like that much for, what is it, five or six palaces in total?

I am not fussed if he does move it all to Windsor, but what about the other family members who use Buckingham Palace as their base? I believe Edward and Sophie, as well as Andrew, all have apartments in Buckingham Palace. What would become of their apartments?

__________________

__________________

"I am yours, you are mine, of that be sure. You are locked in my heart, the little key is lost and now you must stay there forever."

Written by Princess Alix of Hesse and by Rhine in the diary of her fiance, Tsarevich Nicholas.